Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SC who wrote (28292)	6/27/1998 11:22:00 PM
From: Windseye	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 97611

Hmmm.... it's probably time to start sending some of these reports to CPQ's staff, including shareholder relations folk... DJ

To: SC who wrote (28292)	6/28/1998 8:47:00 AM
From: Lynn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

I can't access the Compaq newsgroup for the server I use. If I could, I'd make the comment that I can not imagine the Compaq is the only PC maker that is "not allowed by LAW to support any OS installed in a system other that what was LISCENSED." If Microsoft has this agreement with Compaq, I assume they also have it with Dell, IBM, Toshiba, etc--everyone. Lynn

To: SC who wrote (28292)	6/28/1998 11:11:00 AM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

Shawn - the following problem occurs according to Compaq's web site Can you give me the URL? I could not find this on Compaq's web site. And regarding this nonsense proposed by a guy who claims to be a CPQ employee (BTW there is no CPQ, DEC or Tandem employee or contractor named andy campos, or anything even close - I had one of my buddies search the online address book. Probably just another Bull artist. I can't imagine CPQ would let someone with no understanding of license terms actually talk to customers). Anyway, this 'expert' claims: we are not allowed by LAW to support any OS installed in a system other that what was LISCENSED for that unit As a friend of mine often says, 'here's another guy who doesn't know st!'. ANY Copy of the OS that you actually PAY for is 'licensed for the machine' by definition. A free OS is also 'licensed for the machine'. There is a provision in all Microsoft software called the EULA (End User License Agreement) which requires you to click 'yes' to some bunch of legalese, I'm sure you have clicked these boxes hundreds of times. This is the step in the process that confirms you are 'licensed' and not knowingly stealing the software. The MS provision he refers to is to prevent CPQ and others from supporting PIRATED software. As far as the text of the message from 'billy', the original poster - people like him give me a headache. He is like the guy who called CPQ to complain that a free game he downloaded from the net would not run correctly. Maybe this idiot thinks he should be able to call CPQ support for problems with GNU and LINUX too!!! CPQ provides support for products CPQ sells, not for anything in the market which might conceivably be installed or inserted into a CPQ machine. It seems obvious to me that if you buy the product from Microsoft, you call Microsoft for support. Why should CPQ have the burden of training staff and doing testing on versions of products it does not sell? As a shareholder I would jump all over a money-wasting policy like that.** Support by CPQ for non-CPQ products is a very different issue than whether Win98 out of the box runs correctly on a Presario.